Actually, it translates to "I believe that, if there were large-scale tests done (not just a single study), those tests would conclude that burn-in does exist as a physical phenomenon for some headphones."

"I believe...." still means "There is no evidence."

In a discussion of measurable phenomena offering "I believe" as an argument means you decline to enage in rational enquiry or meaningful debate. This isn't quantum theory or an enquiry into the nature of infinity. It's something that demonstrably can be quantified using well understood tools and method. And has been.

Originally Posted by ACDOAN
" All Bryston amps get a rugged 100 factory hours burn-in consisting of a square wave input signal driving the amplifier into capacitive load slightly under clipping.Unlike resistive load, which dissipates all the energy as heat, a capacitive load feeds back the entire signal into the amplifier which puts maximum thermal stress on the output stage. After burn-in, each amplifier is again tested; the results are shipped with the amplifier. "

As I said - if the product will change in a meaningful way due to burn-in, it will be burned in at the factory. No company wants their product to perform poorly out of the box - that first impression is important.

If it wasn't burned in at the factory, then there's no meaningful change from burn-in.

And please note that meaningful is the key word there. That's not to say the performance will remain completely unchanged over time, but that it won't change in some significant way so that it now sounds completely different to the device you didn't like when you took it out of the box.

If, after a few hundred hours of listening (listening, not leaving them running unattended) you start to like the headphones/amp/whatever a lot more, then it's because you have now adjusted to its sound - it's not that it has changed.

And it sounds like the "burn-in" that Bryston are doing, is actually stress-testing the hardware before shipping it out, rather than it actually impacting the audio quality in any way.

I see the same thing mentioned on forums discussing Plasma TVs as well. Originally people suggested that you needed 1000 hours on a set before it was properly run in and operating at its peak performance.

People were making claims about how the dithering noise on their Pioneer plasma sets magically disappeared by the time it hit 1000 hours.

That "hash digital image" when they first switched from their CRT to a Plasma disappeared after several hundred hours.

And over time, that number has dropped to about 100 hours because newer plasmas are better than they used to be, so they don't need run in as long.

A lot of these arguments can be quite convincing, and you have a lot of people repeating this information, and saying it made a big difference to them.

Well things like the dithering on a Pioneer plasma are inherent to those displays - if they reduced the amount of dither, you would see a drastic increase in banding in the image. They have very limited gradation and need to use a lot of dither to make up for it.

So that can't be changing over time - yet people report that it does.

There used to be reports that the black level on Panasonic plasmas got better over time - well it has now been shown that it actually gets worse over time.

And claims that the "harsh digital image" has now become more analog - well displays like Plasmas have a fixed pixel structure, and their image processing isn't changing over time. So it's the same thing there - people are just getting used to the device, rather than it actually improving over time.

On the other hand I believe that the only reason they didn't find the moon is made of cheese is that they didn't dig deep enough....yet. All we need to do is gather some space cadets, a rocket ship and some space shovels and it's only a matter of time. You buy the bread and butter, I'll bring the tomatoes and the toaster. To incredulity and beyond!

On the other hand I believe that the only reason they didn't find the moon is made of cheese is that they didn't dig deep enough....yet. All we need to do is gather some space cadets, a rocket ship and some space shovels and it's only a matter of time. You buy the bread and butter, I'll bring the tomatoes and the toaster. To incredulity and beyond!

Oh I don't know, where do we get those showels in time? They'll need to be burned in first ofc...

About Tyll's blind Q701 test, have we all forgotten about product variances? HD800 for one has actual graphs of each headphone that was ever produced and they do fluctuate a little. Maybe the Q701 that Tyll has also fluctuated a little.
While that may not be the only factor, that may be a contributing factor.
Also another thing to note is earpads, they get softer over time and i have observed some valours get really soft as time progressed and it may change the sound and seal.
He stated that the burned in Q701 is warmer sounding, which seems about consistent with softer earpads having the driver closer to the ear.

One way to keep consistency is to swap out the broken in earpads with a new one for the test so they are the same.

In a discussion of measurable phenomena offering "I believe" as an argument means you decline to enage in rational enquiry or meaningful debate. This isn't quantum theory or an enquiry into the nature of infinity. It's something that demonstrably can be quantified using well understood tools and method. And has been.

You still managed to ignore the bulk of my words. I'm calling for more rational tests, not blowing smoke and just stating I'm right indisputably. I could very easily be wrong. You're being nearly as irrational in saying that you believe that burn-in doesn't exist as I am in saying that it does. A lack of studies does not mean that something doesn't exist.

To piggyback off your moon analogy, we never tested for millenia that the moon itself was there, but we believed it because it seemed fairly obvious to us.

A single study of a single model of headphone is not the unassailable body of proof you seem to claim it is, and again to reiterate the point I've made continuously: MOST headphones do not have noticeable or significant burn-in. SOME, I believe a good study would show, do.

My Panasonic plasma has a playstation logo burned in, does this count?

Oh, but didn't you hear? If you run a break-in disk that flashes black and white or r/g/b images for 100 hours before using the TV, you can't burn them in any more! Plasmas fixed that problem years ago.

...and yet it still happens.

Sigh.

I hate the amount of misinformation that people spread online on forums, whether misguided or malicious.

Sorry to hear about your problems with it.

It's the same thing when discussing "burn in" with headphones. (obviously a different type of burn-in)

As I said originally - if the headphones or amplifier, or whatever device it is actually benefitted in a meaningful way, it would come that way from the factory.

And when companies like Bryston advertise that they burn in the devices before selling them, it's usually a stress test on the hardware for reliability reasons, not performance reasons.

It's usually not the manufacturer that is telling people they should burn in their product for X amount of time before using them, or before they perform at their best - it's the people selling the products (often trying to avoid a return) or the people that have already purchased them themselves.

Maybe it's true that they bought the headphones, didn't like the first impression they got from them, and grew to like them as they spent more time with them - but that doesn't mean the headphones themselves are actually changing in a meaningful way that makes them sound better.

It's the same thing when discussing "burn in" with headphones. (obviously a different type of burn-in)

As I said originally - if the headphones or amplifier, or whatever device it is actually benefitted in a meaningful way, it would come that way from the factory.

And when companies like Bryston advertise that they burn in the devices before selling them, it's usually a stress test on the hardware for reliability reasons, not performance reasons.

It's usually not the manufacturer that is telling people they should burn in their product for X amount of time before using them, or before they perform at their best - it's the people selling the products (often trying to avoid a return) or the people that have already purchased them themselves.

Maybe it's true that they bought the headphones, didn't like the first impression they got from them, and grew to like them as they spent more time with them - but that doesn't mean the headphones themselves are actually changing in a meaningful way that makes them sound better.

I agree with you. The vast majority of companies would do this if it impacted their products to a large degree. Still, I will hold onto the thought that a few models slip through the cracks, because not every company does what the should.

I'm going to exit this thread now, trying to be on a more amicable note than I have been. In the end, regardless of what we all think on the burn-in issue, we should know to trust the facts when presented. I'm hoping for more studies, and I'd love to be disproven. It'll give me a better perspective of how my brain gets used to sound. I'd also love to find out that burn-in is real, so perhaps I can go back and try a few cans I was initially disappointed with and returned, in the hopes that after some time they'll get better.

In the end, we're all about the same thing, and regardless of any technical debate we can all agree to love the equipment we've got and to trust our own ears for musical enjoyment.

You still managed to ignore the bulk of my words. I'm calling for more rational tests, not blowing smoke and just stating I'm right indisputably. I could very easily be wrong. You're being nearly as irrational in saying that you believe that burn-in doesn't exist as I am in saying that it does. A lack of studies does not mean that something doesn't exist.

To piggyback off your moon analogy, we never tested for millenia that the moon itself was there, but we believed it because it seemed fairly obvious to us.

A single study of a single model of headphone is not the unassailable body of proof you seem to claim it is, and again to reiterate the point I've made continuously: MOST headphones do not have noticeable or significant burn-in. SOME, I believe a good study would show, do.

Still I find out that there is nothing but a bunch of opinions and opinions are just that, one's man bias point of view. As far as Bryston 100 burn-in hrs, again, there are some assumption that it is only for testing to make sure the amplifier(s) performs up the spec but there is no evidence to back up that assumption either.

Stuart Taylor , a chief ecletrical engineer at Bryston who is credited for the designed of the SST amplifier lines. Hence the SST series are named after him. I think it more appropriate for Stuart Taylor to claim the burn-in effect ( 100 hrs) on his amplifiers than our opinions. After all, opinions are just opinions, bias or unbias.

Move on, enjoy the music. Either you believe in burn-in or you do not believe in such placebo effects. It's your ears and your money and most of all, your happiness of enjoying the music is what it counts.

I quizzed Axel Grell at the headfi meet in London about this. I asked him why my HD800s sounded so thin and harsh for the first 30 mins they were on. He said he reckoned they were just cold and had been laid up in storage for a little while and this was quite normal for headphones as big as the HD800s. Burn in is a real important discussion; it's what causes so many headphones to be sold on headfi so soon after purchase, people just don't give them a good enough try. Still that's to other's advantage.

I quizzed Axel Grell at the headfi meet in London about this. I asked him why my HD800s sounded so thin and harsh for the first 30 mins they were on. He said he reckoned they were just cold and had been laid up in storage for a little while and this was quite normal for headphones as big as the HD800s. Burn in is a real important discussion; it's what causes so many headphones to be sold on headfi so soon after purchase, people just don't give them a good enough try. Still that's to other's advantage.

I agree with your point of view about the learning curve of "burn-in" however this is an endless topic among the followings: 1. Do all amplifiers sound the same ? 2. Cables are just wires ? 3. Digital sources such as CDP ,SACD players sound the same ? 4. Is burn-in just a myth? 5. LP/ CD demagnetization is just B.S. Those are among a few topics that have endless discussions and most often that leads to hostility and counter productivity. Audio is a very personal hobby and trail and error of the learning curve are inevitable. Sadly, science is not the answer to all human answer. Human perception is unique and can neither be approved nor disapproved by science but that does not mean it does not exist.

I agree with your point of view about the learning curve of "burn-in" however this is an endless topic among the followings: 1. Do all amplifiers sound the same ?2. Cables are just wires ?3. Digital sources such as CDP ,SACD players sound the same ?4. Is burn-in just a myth?5. LP/ CD demagnetization is just B.S. Those are among a few topics that have endless discussions and most often that leads to hostility and counter productivity. Audio is a very personal hobby and trail and error of the learning curve are inevitable. Sadly, science is not the answer to all human answer. Human perception is unique and can neither be approved nor disapproved by science but that does not mean it does not exist.

Feeling very compelled, but holding back just a little...just the two big ones for now: 5. Demagnetizing nonmagnetic storage medium is nonsense. (whew!) and the concept that science is not the answer...human perception is unique...those two sentences...Everyone is free to adopt their own belief system based on anything or nothing. But the beliefs that are most comforting, most resilient and long-lasting are those adopted with deep understanding, those that have proof behind them, and those that go well beyond the unsubstantiated claim and land on verifiable truth. It's one thing to say, "My power cable makes my sound better", and perhaps even extract a degree of temporary satisfaction in that belief. But some day that belief may crumble and deep dissatisfaction will result. It's another thing entirely to know that the $300 you might have spent on a power cable without verifiable results has been put into your music collection where it can continue to give back for years to come.

Science has not explained everything, but it's working on it, and has explained a lot, and its answers are provable, and repeatable. That's not a claim that can be made by other belief systems.

I agree with your point of view about the learning curve of "burn-in" however this is an endless topic among the followings: 1. Do all amplifiers sound the same ?2. Cables are just wires ?3. Digital sources such as CDP ,SACD players sound the same ?4. Is burn-in just a myth?5. LP/ CD demagnetization is just B.S. Those are among a few topics that have endless discussions and most often that leads to hostility and counter productivity.

There's exceptions to pretty much everything you mentioned except demagnetization. For example, nobody says all amps sound the same. Only if they show similar performance they sound the same regardless of price.

Quote:

Audio is a very personal hobby and trail and error of the learning curve are inevitable. Sadly, science is not the answer to all human answer. Human perception is unique and can neither be approved nor disapproved by science but that does not mean it does not exist.

Could you name a non-personal hobby?

I guess you wanted to say "human questions". Well yeah, it doesn't, but for blatant claims like cable X sounds better than cable Y science can provide answers.

Anyway, what makes you think science does not make extensive use of human perception?